- From: Michel_Dumontier <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:30:55 -0400
- To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- CC: "public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
> But then anyone merging two TMO documents with different units has the > normalization burden. If we pick a unit and annotate the predicates, > then the folks who would have to do the work of merging with non-TMO > documents (who would have to introduce some rules/canonicalization > pipeline anyways) have the OWL hooks to automate that merging. Again, if we are considering TMO, then we can impose a restriction to specify the unit - we can also make this clear in documentation relating to the measurements with units. > > Also, having domain-independent predicates makes it easier to render > a view > > of the data (for human consumption) that includes visual cues > regarding the > > units of measures associated with values directly from the data since > such > > tools will always expect the same set of terms to capture a value and > its > > unit of measurement. > > If you've bought the argument for early normalization, isn't it > needlessly dangerous to offer the freedom to express BP in mmHg in an > ontology that's required to have BP in MPa? It does put more burden on > the use of generic data browsers (they'd have to read the OWL in order > to present the user with units), but I think that use case is small > compared to the cost of data consumption. I don't think we should tailor our data model to generic data browsers - they are far too simple for the complex knowledge that we have to represent. m.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2010 20:31:28 UTC